The prior art is replete with various different types of equipment designed to test the operability and functionality of electronic and electrical components and combinations of components.
Several difficulties are known to exist with respect to prior art testing apparatuses, methods, and systems.
Testing devices are employed for many different reasons. Among them, testing devices are used to validate the acceptability of electronic or electrical devices during the manufacture of those electrical or electronic components or the commercial products in which these components are incorporated.
In one example, it is known to test semiconductor chips before they are incorporated into other devices, such as computers. The acceptability of these semiconductor components may require several different tests, arranged in a test sequence, to be performed on the semiconductor components.
One deficiency associated with the prior art lies in the design and construction of known testing devices. Specifically, to test a particular component, a manufacturer is required to build (or contract with a third party to have built) a testing device for the component to be tested.
To test a variety of components, the testing device typically is over-designed, which means that the testing device includes components and hardware that are not used during every test sequence. As a result, in many cases, at least a portion of the testing device remains idle. In a worst-case scenario, the entire testing device remains idle, and the manufacturer must employ an entirely different testing device. In such a case, a manufacturer may be required to purchase a number of different testing devices to meet different testing demands during the year. Each testing device can be quite costly to the manufacturer.
As should be appreciated by those skilled in the art, few manufacturers make only one electronic component during the course of a manufacturing year. In fact, it is quite common for a manufacturer to make several different electronic components during the course of a year.
Each time the manufacturer switches to the manufacture of a different component, the manufacturer utilizes different parts of the testing device for that component. It is also possible that the manufacturer may need to add or exchange parts of the testing device when testing a different component. Alternatively still, a manufacturer may need to switch to another testing device altogether.
As a result of this, manufacturers often find that at least a portion of the testing device remains idle for long periods of time. In other cases, the entire testing device may remain idle. In either case, electronic manufacturers spend large sums of money on testing devices, parts of which are used only for short periods of time, parts of which are used only periodically, or parts of which are used only for a particular production run. The cost of these testing devices is passed onto the consumer and is reflected in the cost of the electronics that are sold.
As a result of this approach to testing, there has developed a need for a greater amount of granularity in the design of testing devices. In other words, a need has developed for testing devices where portions of the testing device may be substituted to adapt the testing device for different components, so that the testing device is more easily configured for a particular component under test. In addition, a need has developed for less expensive testing devices. These needs remain unaddressed by the prior art.
Another difficulty with the prior art lies in the length of time needed to test an individual electronic or electrical component.
Currently, testers rely on a non-pipelined approach to testing. What this means is that current testing devices do not apply a testing methodology where the handling of the component to be tested and the gathering of data are handled separately from the processing of the gathered data as a result of the testing of the component. In the prior art methodology, gathering data, processing data, and handling occur consecutively for each tested component or groups of tested components.
After the test is complete, the testing device analyzes the results of the test and generates an evaluation report for that component or group of components.
In the simplest example, after the test sequence is completed, the testing device will assess the operability of the component and assign a “pass” or “fail” result to the component. The analysis is performed while the component is connected to the testing device so that prompt action may be taken with respect to that component at the conclusion of the test sequence. As would be appreciated by those skilled in the art, a component that “passes” will be sold to the consumer or will proceed to the next manufacturing step. If the component “fails” the test, the component will be discarded or returned for further processing, as needed.
This non-pipelined approach to testing presents a number of issues. Among them, the total test time needed to test components and return a report may negatively impact the manufacturing process, because the length of the test sequence may occupy a significant part of the manufacturing process.
Among others, the deficiencies noted above with respect to the prior art remain unresolved.